LOYAL  PUB  L!  CATION  SOCIETY, 

863  BROADWAY. 


JTo.  32. 


r  NEW  YORK : 

» 


C.  S.  Westcott  &  Co.,  Printers,  79  John  Street. 


1  8  fi  3  . 


LOYAL  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

NEW  YORK. 


The  objects  of  the  Society  are  expressed  in  the  following  Resolu¬ 
tion ,  formally  adopted  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Society , 
at  its  first  meeting ,  February  14,  1863. 

Resolved ,  That  the  object  of  this  organization  is,  and  shall  be  confined  to, 
the  distribution  of  Journals  and  Documents  of  unquestionable  and  uncondi¬ 
tional  loyalty  throughout  the  United  States,  and  particularly  in  the  Armies 
now  engaged  in  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion,  and  to  counteract,  as  far  as 
practicable,  the  efforts  now  being  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  Government 
and  the  advocates  of  a  disgraceful  peace  to  circulate  journals  and  documents 
of  a  disloyal  character. 

Persons  sympathizing  with  the  objects  of  this  Society ,  and  wish¬ 
ing  to  contribute  funds  for  its  support ,  may  address 

MORRIS  KETCHUM,  Esq.,  Treasurer ,  40  Exchange  Place, 

Receipts  will  be  promptly  returned. 


/ 


.  £>  5-^'* 


Ovvv 


loyal  publication  society, 

863  BROADWAY. 

No.  32. 


WAR  POWER  OF  THE  PRESIDENT-SUMMARY  IMPRISON- 

MENT-HABEAS  CORPUS. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  establishes  a  government, 
and  not  a  confederacy  or  compact  merely.  This  is  obvious  from  the 
facts  that  it  institutes  all  the  essentials  of  governmental  power :  a  legis¬ 
lature,  an  executive,  and  a  judiciary  ;  and  that  these  powers  are  in¬ 
dependent  of,  and  superior  to,  the  several  state  legislative,  executive, 
and  judicial  powers ;  so  that  we  have  an  independent  self-existent 
government.  It  matters  not  that  it  is  constitutionally  limited  in  its 
purposes,  it  is,  within  its  constitutional  sphere  of  action,  as  perfect  a 
sovereignty  as  any  government  on  the  face  of  the  earth;  for,  “this 
constitution,  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  be  made 
in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made, 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land  ;  and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any¬ 
thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  not¬ 
withstanding  and,  “the  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in 
law  and  equity,  arising  under  this  Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  treaties  made  or  which  shall  be  made  under  their  au¬ 
thority  and,  “the  senators  and  representatives  before-mentioned, 
and  the  members  of  the  several  state  legislatures,  and  all  executive 
and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several 
states,  shall  be  bound  by  oath  or  affirmation  to  support  this  Consti¬ 
tution.” 

We  have,  then,  a  National  Government  comprising  a  legislature, 
invested  with  certain  specified  law-making  powers ;  an  executive,  to 
see  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed ;  and  a  judiciary  to  maintain 
all  the  legitimate  powers  of  the  government  intact. 


2 


And  in  its  territorial  jurisdiction,  this  government  is  co-extensive 
with  the  thirty-four  states  of  the  Union,  and  all  other  territory  there¬ 
unto  belonging.  And  it  was  established  in  perpetuity  ;  all  its  powers 
were  given,  granted,  and  conveyed  forever,  save  so  far  as  they  may,  from 
time  to  time,  be  amended  in  the  way  prescribed  in  the  Constitution. 
Constitutionally,  then,  this  government  is  perpetual.  It  has  a  right 
to  live  in  the  plenitude  of  its  power,  and  the  integrity  of  its  territorial 
sovereignty.  And  this  right  of  life  and  perpetuity  is  necessarily  a 
primary  and  fundamental  constitutional  principle — paramount  to 
everything  else.  Every  specific  provision  of  the  Constitution  is  as 
obviously  subordinate  to  it  as  if  a  clause  to  that  effect  were  plainly 
written  down,  for  the  continued  life  of  the  government  is  the  indis¬ 
pensable  basis  upon  which  the  entire  Constitution  rests. 

Assuming,  then,  the  controlling  principle  of  the  Constitution  to  be, 
that  the  government  and  the  Constitution  itself  shall  live,  it  is  self- 
evident,  that  this  same  controlling  principle  carries  with  it  all  the 
needful  power  to  protect  and  defend  the  government  in  all  its  politi¬ 
cal  and  territorial  sovereignty;  so  that  there  is  somewhere  in  the  gov¬ 
ernment  a  constitutional  power  to  resist  and  suppress  a  rebellion, 
limited  only  by  the  necessity  of  the  case  ;  power  unlimited  to  use  any 
and  all  means  necessary  or  expedient  to  suppress  it ;  power  to  put 
everything  out  of  the  way  that  in  any  manner,  or  in  any  degree,  en¬ 
dangers  the  life  of  the  government. 

We  say  this  principle  flows  naturally  from  the  right  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  live ;  and  we  may  go  a  step  farther,  and  trace  it  to  a  still 
deeper  source  in  the  constitutional  fountain  ;  to  the  constitutional 
fact  that  we  have  a  government.  For  without  this  principle,  it  can¬ 
not  be  said  that  the  government  has  really  a  right  to  live ;  without  it, 
any  portion  of  the  people  could  destroy  the  government  at  will ;  and 
without  the  right  to  live,  what  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  a 
government,  is  really  no  government  at  all  If  we  have  a  rightful 
government,  that  government  has  a  right  to  live  ;  if  it  has  a  right  to 
live,  it  has  a  right  to  defend  itself  against  rebellion  ;  and  if  it  has  a 
right  to  defend  itself,  it  has  a  right  to  use  all  needful  means  for  that 
purpose.  If  it  has  not  the  right  thus  to  defend  itself,  the  rebels  have 
the  right  to  destroy  it ;  for  it  cannot  be  wrong  to  destroy  it,  and  also 
wrong  to  defend  it.  I  cannot  comprehend  the  Buchanan  doctrine, 
that  the  rebels  have  not  the  right  to  destroy  the  government,  and  that 
the  government  has  not  the  right  to  resist  them.  It  makes  the  Con¬ 
stitution  a  jumble.  It  makes  it  mean  neither  one  thing  nor  the  other, 


3 


and  puts  sovereignty  nowhere.  Rejecting  this  mysterious  doctrine, 
therefore,  we  must  admit,  either  the  unlimited  right  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  defend  itself,  or  the  right  of  the  South  to  break  up  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  There  is  no  middle  ground. 

This  brief  deduction  of  constitutional  principles,  conclusive  in  itself 
as  it  seems  to  be,  is  specifically  endorsed  and  confirmed  by  this  clause 
of  the  Constitution ; 

“  Before  he  enters  on  the  execution  of  his  office,  he  shall  take  the 
following  oath  or  affirmation :  I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm), 
that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  protect,  and  de 
fend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

This  clause  commands  the  Constitution  to  be  preserved,  protected, 
and  defended,  not  conditionally,  not  in  any  particular  manner,  not  by 
any  limited  means,  and  not  in  subordination  to  the  dicta  of  judges  or 
anybody  else  ;  buc  to  the  full  extent  of  the  President's  ability.  This 
language  sounds  very  much  as  if  the  first  object  of  the  Constitution  is 
to  preserve  and  perpetuate  itself.  Paramount  to  everything  else,  it 
shall  be  preserved,  protected,  and  defended.  Such  is  the  palpable 
import  of  the  language.  Now,  to  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution,  it  is  indispensable  that  this  rebellion  shall  be  suppressed ; 
so  that  this  clause  plainly  and  unequivocally  requires  and  commands 
that  the  rebellion  shall  be  put  down  by  any  efficient  and  necessary 
means  whatever.  And  it  constitutes  and  appoints  the  President  the 
chief  agent  of  the  nation  to  do  this  work.  It  swears  him  to  do  it 
to  the  best  of  his  ability,  while  it  does  not  require  any  other  man  to 
be  so  sworn.  Other  officers  are  sworn  simply  to  support  the  Constitu¬ 
tion — he  is  sworn  to  preserve ,  protect ,  and  defend  it.  To  support  the 
Constitution  is  to  uphold  it  by  our  ordinary  influence  and  not  oppose 
it  ;  to  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  it  to  the  best  of  one’s  ability,  is  to 
seek  out  its  enemies  who  make  war  upon  it,  and  their  aids  and  com¬ 
forters,  and  put  them  down. 

Constitutionally  appointed  commander-in  chief,  for  this  purpose, 
too,  the  President  is  the  embodiment  of  the  unlimited  national  sover¬ 
eignty  for  the  active  work  of  preserving,  protecting,  and  defending  the 
Constitution  ;  in  other  words,  for  suppressing  rebellion.  Whatever 
the  nation  has  a  right  to  do  in  this  behalf,  he  is  the  lawful  agent  to 
do,  with  all  the  material  means  placed  at  his  command  by  Con¬ 
gress.  Therefore,  the  Constitution  is  imperative  that  he  shall  suppress 
this  rebellion  by  any  and  all  needful  measures,  to  the  best  of  his 


4 


ability.  He  is  not  only  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  in  the 
field  and  the  navy  on  the  waters,  but  the  special  conservator  of  the 
Constitution  in  all  respects,  with  jurisdiction  co-extensive  with  the 
whole  Union.  His  power  in  this  behalf  reaches  Maine  and  Minne¬ 
sota,  as  well  as  Virginia  and  Carolina. 

Tell  me  now,  ye  croakers  for  “  the  Constitution  as  it  is,”  why  it 
is  that  the  President  may  lawfully  shoot  down  our  own  citizens  in 
rebel  armies,  or  imprison  them,  or  destroy  towns  and  cities  and  other 
property,  “  without  due  process  of  law,”  in  the  face  of  the  plain 
constitutional  provision,  for  which  you  clamor  so  long  and  so  loudly, 
that  “no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  with¬ 
out  due  process  of  law.”  It  is  because  the  Constitution  is  not  a  self- 
destroying  instrument ;  because  no  part  of  it  was  designed  to  aid 
traitors  in  the  unholy  work  of  destroying  the  whole  ;  because  there  is 
nothing  in  it  calculated  to  hinder  or  obstruct  the  work  of  maintain¬ 
ing  it  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  because  that  and  all  kindred 
provisions  are  subordinate  to  the  great  fundamental  principle  of  the 
right  of  the  government  to  live  and  defend  itself  against  all  perils ; 
because  this  principle  obviously  implies  that  every  specific  provision  of 
the  Constitution  shall  be  construed  consistently  with  the  amplest  right 
of  the  government  to  suppress  rebellion  by  all  needful  means  ;  and  be¬ 
cause  the  government,  having  the  right  to  live,  has  the  correlative 
right  to  use  sufficient  means  to  preserve  its  own  life,  precisely  as  an 
individual  has  the  right  to  defend  his  life  by  any  necessary  means, 
even  to  taking  the  life  of  an  assailant. 

If  all  this  be  sound  constitutional  law,  it  follows,  necessarily,  that, 
in  the  execution  of  the  great  trust  that  is  upon  him,  with  the  solemn 
oath  upon  his  soul,  that  he  will  preserve,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  the  President  not  only  has  a 
constitutional  right,  but  it  is  his  inexorable  duty  to  suppress  by  suffi¬ 
ciently  summary  means,  anything  and  everything,  anywhere  and 
everywhere,  within  the  Union,  which,  directly  or  indirectly,  adds 
strength  to  the  rebellion.  Tell  me  not  that  there  is  no  rebellion  in 
the  loyal  states.  If  any  man  in  Pennsylvania  or  Massachusetts  is 
guilty  of  any  act  which  tends  to  aid  the  rebel  arms,  or  to  obstruct  or 
impede  the  President  in  his  work  of  crushing  out  the  rebellion,  that 
man  is  a  part  and  parcel  of  the  rebellion,  as  much  so  as  is  the  soldier 
who  carries  a  rebel  musket  in  the  field  ;  and  it  is  as  clearly  the  Pres¬ 
ident’s  duty  to  suppress  him  as  it  is  to  suppress  those  in  arms. 

But  the  courts  in  the  loyal  states  are  open,  it  is  urged,  and  there- 


fore,  why  not  do  all  this  through  them  ?  Because  he  cannot  so  surely 
do  it  thus.  The  Constitution  is  imperative  that  he  shall  suppress  such 
men ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  that  permits  him  to 
evade  it  by  leaving  it  to  the  hands  of  another  department  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  which  is  independent  of  him.  And,  besides,  the  courts  can¬ 
not  do  it  efficiently.  When  the  traitors  of  the  loyal  state  of  Maryland 
were  concocting  their  grand  scheme  to  hurl  the  organized  power  of 
that  state  against  the  government,  probably  not  a  man  of  them  was 
known  to  be  guilty  of  any  act  for  which  he  could  even  have  been 
arrested  by  civil  process.  And  whatever  their  offences  against  the 
laws  might  have  been,  and  whatever  the  lidelity  of  the  courts  in  that 
jurisdiction,  the  process  of  civil  law  would  have  been  far  too  slow  to 
prevent  the  consummation  of  the  gigantic  treason  which  would  have 
added  another  state  to  the  rebellion.  And  yet  these  men  were 
doing  more  to  aid  the  rebel  cause  than  ten  thousand  armed  men  in 
the  field  could  do.  Courts  could  not  have  suppressed  that  unholy 
work,  but  the  summary  imprisonment  of  those  few  men  saved  the 
state  of  Maryland  to  the  Union  cause.  And  so  in  most  other  cases 
of  disloyal  practices  in  the  loyal  states.  Adroit  traitors,  in  loyal 
communities,  can  render  more  aid  to  the  rebellion,  without  rendering 
themselves  liable  to  any  civil  law,  than  ten  times  their  number  in  the 
rebel  army.  That  aid  is  none  the  less  valuable  to  the  enemy,  or  less 
dangerous  to  the  government,  for  not  being  violations  of  statute  laws. 
Statute  books,  and  courts,  and  juries,  cannot  save  the  republic.  The 
rebellion  is  one  indivisible  whole,  comprising  all  the  rebels  in  the  land, 
North  and  South  ;  and  the  President  is  charged  with  the  duty  of  sup¬ 
pressing  all  oj  it.  And  if  he  is  to  do  it,  he  must  do  it  by  military 
power — he  must  do  it  all  by  military  power,  for  he  cannot  control 
any  other  power. 

Assuming,  then,  that  the  President  has  the  constitutional  right  to 
use  any  needful  means  to  suppress  rebellion,  and,  to  this  end,  to  use 
the  like  means  to  suppress  everything  that  aids  it,  it  must  be  con¬ 
fessed,  that  here  we  stand  at  the  threshold  of  despotism.  Plere  is 
the  boundary  line  of  our  constitutional  government,  with  a  not  very 
distinct  line  of  demarcation  between  it  and  despotic  power.  I  think 
I  Lave  made  it  plain  that  necessity  is  the  only  line.  The  President 
may  do,  he  must  do,  whatever  is  necessary  to  suppress  ,the  rebellion, 
and  preserve  the  life  of  the  government.  But  who  is  the  judge  of  the 
necessity  of  any  particular  act?  If  the  President  is  the  final  judge, 
there  is  virtually  no  limitation  to  his  power  in  the  premises,  and  we 


6 


make  him  a  despot.  Undoubtedly  he  must  judge  in  the  first  instance 
— there  is  no  alternative— just  as  a  man  whose  life  is  assailed,  must 
judge  immediately  what  degree  of  force  is  necessary  to  repel 
the  attack  and  protect  his  own  life.  But  it  stands  the  President 
in  hand  to  judge  wisely,  just  as  it  does  the  individual.  The  man 
who  kills  his  assailant  unnecessarily ,  will  not  be  held  guiltless  by  a  court 
and  jury,  who  are  the  final  judges  of  the  transaction.  Exactly  so 
with  the  President.  His  government  is  assailed,  and  its  life  imper¬ 
illed  by  armed  and  unarmed  traitors.  The  Constitution  empowers 
him  to  do  everything  that  is  necessary  to  suppress  these  traitors,  all  of 
them,  to  the  end  that  the  life  of  the  government  may  be  saved — just 
as  the  law  empowers  an  individual  to  do  everything  necessary  to  sup¬ 
press  an  assassin  to  save  his  own  life.  But  beyond  this  necessity,  the 
President  has  not  an  iota  of  power  more  than  any  other  man.  While 
he  may  lawfully  shoot  down  armed  and  resisting  rebels,  because  they 
cannot  be  otherwise  suppressed,  to  take  the  lives  of  unarmed  rebels  in 
the  North,  or  of  prisoners  taken  in  arms,  would  be  murder,  because 
their  further  aid  to  the  rebellion  can  be  suppressed  by  imprisonment. 
To  take  their  lives  is,  therefore,  not  necessary,  and  not  constitutional. 
And  while  he  may  lawfully  suppress  disloyal  practices  in  the  North, 
by  imprisoning  their  authors,  because  such  is  the  mildest  efficient 
means  to  that  end,  and  therefore  necessary  to  the  suppression  of  the 
rebellion,  the  imprisonment  of  any  other  persons  would  be  unconsti¬ 
tutional  and  false,  and  the  President  and  every  other  person  engaged 
in  it  would  be  personally  liable  in  law  for  the  same.  Such  is  the 
constitutional  theory  upon  which  we  are  authorized  to  make  war  against 
rebellion. 

The  President  and  his  subordinates  are,  therefore,  under  a  delicate 
and  terrible  responsibility.  While  the  Constitution  requires  him  to 
do  anything  and  everything  necessary  to  suppress  all  men  who,  in  any 
manner,  or  in  any  degree  aid  the  rebellion,  the  courts  will  hold  them 
accountable  for  any  acts  beyond  this ;  and  Congress  cannot  relieve  them 
from  this  responsibility.  To  do  so  would  be  to  authorize  the  violation 
of  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  such  an 
act  would  be  null  and  void.  Inasmuch  as  the  President  has  constitu¬ 
tional  power  to  do  all  that  is  necessary  to  suppress  rebellion,  he  needs 
no  protection  from  Congress  for  the  exercise  of  this  power  ;  and  as 
there  is  no  power  anywhere  in  the  government  to  go  beyond  this,  I 
think  it  is  self-evident  that  Congress  cannot  grant  any  power  in  the 
premises  ;  and  if  it  cannot  do  this,  it  cannot  relieve  the  President  or 
anybody  else  from  the  legal  consequences  of  a  usurpation. 


7 


Now,  if  I  have  succeeded  in  demonstrating  that  the  Constitution 
empowers  the  President  to  imprison  persons  by  military  power,  to 
suppress  disloyal  and  dangerous  practices,  I  think  it  clearly  follows, 
as  a  concomitant  to  tills  power,  that  he  may  suspend  the  privilege  of 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  because  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  incon¬ 
sistent  with  that  kind  of  imprisonment.  For  instance,  in  the  case  of 
those  Maryland  prisoners  to  whom  I  have  alluded  ;  they  were  arrested 
and  imprisoned  by  military  authority,  under  the  clearest  necessity  to 
the  public  safety.  Suppose  they  had  been  brought  immediately  before 
a  judge  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  The  judge  would  have  inquired 
simply  into  the  legality  of  the  imprisonment.  If  legal,  they  would 
have  been  remanded  to  prison  ;  if  not  legal,  they  would  have  been 
discharged.  The  civil  courts  are,  as  I  have  said,  independent  of  the 
President.  They  have  no  jurisdiction  of  military  affairs,  nothing  to 
do  with  the  President’s  work  of  suppressing  rebellion.  Their  prov¬ 
ince  is  to  administer  the  laws  as  they  find  them  on  the  statute-books, 
and  nothing  else  ;  so  that  with  those  men  before  Judge  Taney,  or  any 
other  judge,  on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  without  any  charge  of  crime 
regularly  entered  against  them  according  to  the  civil  code,  they  would 
necessarily  have  been  discharged,  to  pursue  their  work  of  treason,  and 
the  President’s  power  in  the  premises  would  have  been  nugatory. 
This  independence  of  the  judiciary,  this  antagonism,  if  you  please, 
between  the  civil  and  the  military  authorities,  is  what  creates  the 
necessity  for  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  at 
all.  This  is  why  the  suspension  was  not  entirely  prohibited  in 
the  Constitution.  Its  sole  object  is  to  prevent  the  courts  from  par¬ 
alyzing  the  military  arm  of  the  government  in  times  of  public  dan¬ 
ger.  If  the  courts  were  bound  to  take  cognizance  of  military  neces¬ 
sities,  and  were  competent  to  appreciate  them,  there  would  be  no 
need  of  a  constitutional  power  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
at  all.  If  Judge  Hall,  at  New  Orleans,  could  have  administered  the 
law  of  military  necessity,  as  General  Jackson  found  it  pressing  upon 
him,  the  general  would  have  had  no  occasion  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus. 

All  this  shows  the  suspension  of  the  writ  to  be  purely  a  military 
prerogative.  It  is  constitutionally  permitted,  only  as  a  military  neces¬ 
sity — i.  e.,  “  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion,  when  the  public  safety 
may  require  it and  none  but  the  military  authorities  can  know 
when  the  public  safety  does  require  it. 

The  constitutional  provision  that  “  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  ha- 


8 


beas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  cases  of  rebellion 
or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it,”  is  not  a  grant  of  the 
power  to  suspend  it,  as  superficial  statesmen  seem  to  suppose  ;  but 
merely  a  limitation  of  the  power,  which  it  implies,  is  granted  to  some¬ 
body,  in  some  other  part  of  the  Constitution.  And  the  fact  that  this 
limitation  is  found  in  the  article  devoted  chiefly  to  the  legislative  de¬ 
partment,  does  not  imply  that  the  power  is  in  Congress  ;  for  the  sec¬ 
tion  in  which  it  stands  contains  limitations  and  prohibitions  clearly 
applying  to  others  as  well  as  to  Congress.  The  power  in  question 
grows  out  of  the  constitutional  facts  that  this  is  a  government  ;  that 
it  has  a  right  to  perpetuate  itself,  and  that  the  power  is  a  necessary 
incident  to  the  unlimited  power  to  suppress  rebellion,  which  is 
committed  to  the  hands  of  the  President,  as  I  have  tried  to  eluci¬ 
date. 

It  may  be  added,  furthermore,  in  respect  to  this  whole  matter,  that 
independently  of  the  specific  constitutional  charge  that  is  upon  the 
President  to  suppress  rebellion,  as  I  have  tried  to  set  it  forth,  his 
constitutional  appointment  to  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army 
and  navy,  without  prescribing  the  powers  of  that  office,  invests  him 
with  all,  the  usual  powers  of  a  commander-in-chief,  as  recognized  by 
the  usages  of  civilized  nations.  By  this  criterion,  he  is  the  supreme 
ruler  in  all  that  appertains  to  the  conduct  of  a  war.  His  primary 
business  is  to  subdue  the  enemy,  and  his  discretion  in  the  use  of  the 
means  placed  in  his  hands  to  that  end,  is  limited  only  by  the  laws  of 
nations,  and  the  Constitution  as  hereinbefore  set  forth.  His  com¬ 
mands  in  this  behalf,  limited  as  aforesaid,  are  the  law  of  the  land  for 
the  time,  and  supercede  whatever  civil  laws  may  be  in  conflict  with 
them  ;  for  war — civil  war  especially — is  an  appeal  above  the  civil  laws, 
and  not  the  execution  of  them.  This  being  so,  it  needs  no  argument 
to  prove  that  anything  whatever,  in  any  part  of  the  country,  that 
tends  to  impede  the  progress  of  the  national  army  in  suppressing  this 
rebellion,  by  strengthening  or  encouraging  the  enemy,  or  otherwise, 
directly  or  indirectly,  may  be  lawfully  suppressed  by  military  au¬ 
thority. 

Now,  a  word  as  to  the  clamor  about  despotism,  and  the  danger  of 
the  subversion  of  the  Constitution  and  the  people’s  liberties.  War 
partakes  very  much  of  the  character  of  despotism,  the  best  way  we 
can  fix  it  ;  necessarily  so,  in  the  nature  of  things  ;  recognized  to  be 
so  by  the  laws  of  nations,  and  so  accepted  by  our  Constitution  ;  so 
that  it  is  no  subversion  of  the  Constitution  for  a  war  to  be  carried  on 


9 


in  the  way  that  wars  are  always  carried  on,  in  the  way  that  wars 
must  be  carried  on,  if  they  are  wars  at  all;  i.  e.,  by  power  more  or 
less  despotic.  And,  with  the  constitutional  limitations  and  responsi¬ 
bilities,  as  hereinbefore  stated,  I  think  there  is  not  the  slightest  dan¬ 
ger  that  these  war  powers  will  be  permanently  fixed  in  the  ordinary 
administration  of  the  government.  They  are  in  the  President’s  hands 
for  use  upon  disloyal  persons,  and  nobody  else  ;  they  exist  during  the 
war,  and  at  no  other  time  ;  and  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the 
rebellion,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  Can  any  man  with  professions 
of  loyalty  to  his  government  on  his  lips,  object  to  this?  Any  objec¬ 
tions  to  it  are  objections  to  suppressing  the  rebellion  at  all. 

Say  ye  that  these  are  dangerous  powers  to  concede  to  a  President, 
with  a  million  or  so  of  soldiers  at  his  back  ?  No,  the  use  of  these 
powers  can,  in  any  event,  be  dangerous  only  to  the  rebellion  and  the 
rebels,  for  they  reach  not  an  inch  beyond  them.  If,  however,  you 
will  have  it  that  our  liberties  are  just  now  endangered  in  this  behalf, 
the  danger  results  not  from  the  existence  or  the  exercise  of  these  pow¬ 
ers  to  suppress  the  rebellion,  but  from  the  constitutional  fact  that  the 
President  has  command  of  the  army  of  the  nation,  and  the  possibility 
that  he  may  overreach  these  powers,  and  thus  rob  us  of  our  liber¬ 
ties.  To  a  tyrant  chieftain,  however,  with  an  invincible  army 
to  do  his  bidding,  it  matters  not  where  you  draw  the  line  of  his  law¬ 
ful  powers.  Draw  it  where  you  will,  it  will  not.  retard  his  advance 
to  the  goal  of  his  ambition.  Put,  after  all,  if  you  must  insist  that 
our  present  proverbially  honest  and  patriotic  Chief  Magistrate  is  bent 
on  the  subversion  of  the  liberties'  of  his  country,  we  have  a  certain 
security  in  the  army  that  lie  commands  ;  an  army  not  of  mercenaries 
fighting  for  a  master  and  for  their  bread,  but  an  army  made  up  of 
our  own  citizens,  a  part  of  the  great  constituency  of  the  Republic, 
from  every  nook  and  corner  of  the  land,  our  sons,  our  brothers,  and 
our  neighbors,  representing  the  sovereignty  of  the  nation  in  the  held  ; 
fighting,  not  for  Abraham  Lincoln,  or  for  any  other  man,  fighting,  not 
to  destroy  their  own  government  and  their  own  libertiec,  but  fighting 
only  to  crush  out  this  rebellion,  for  the  Constitulion  and  the  Union, 
for  their  own  liberties,  as  well  as  ours.  In  an  army  such  as  this  we 
have  all  the  safety  that  a  rebellion,  such  as  this,  admits  of. 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  the  Constitution  is  sufficient  for  any  emer¬ 
gency  of  national  danger.  It  invests  the  government  'with  ample 
power  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  itself,  without  impairing  the  rights, 
or  endangering  the  iiber.ies  of  the  people.  Let  all  the  people  of  the 

2 


v 


10 


loyal  states  sustain  and  defend  it,  in  the  only  way  in  which  it  can 
possibly  be  sustained  and  defended  in  such  a  time  as  this;  i.  e.,  by 
aiding  and  encouraging,  sustaining  and  supporting,  the  lawful  agents 
of  the  government,  in  striking  down  its  confessed  enemies.  Then  we 
shall  have  no  arbitrary  arrests  in  loyal  states  ;  then  this  rebellion  will 
speedily  totter  to  its  fall;  then  this  Union  will  be  established  as  upon 
the  rock  of  ages ;  then  we  may  defy  the  machinations  of  all  the  des¬ 
potic  powers  of  the  Old  World  to  impede  our  progress,  or  to  cripple 
our  power  ;  then  our  tree  of  liberty  will  take  a  deeper  root,  and  send 
its  branches  upward  and  outward  until  they  encircle  the  whole  earth. 

Hyde  Park,  Pa.,  ,Jvn%  1863. 


« 


I 


* 


I 


.  u 


.  ' 


f 


* 


\ 


-* 


OFFICERS  OF  THE 


LOYAL  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY, 

863  BROADWAY,  [NEW  YORK. 


President. 

CHAKLES  KING. 

Treasurer. 

MORKIS  KETCHUM. 


Secretary. 

JOHN  AUSTIN  STEVENS,  Jr. 


Finance  Committee. 

CHARLES  BUTLER,  Chairman. 


GEORGE  GRISWOLD, 
MORRIS  KETCHUM, 
CHARLES  H.  MARSHALL, 
HENRY  A.  HURLBUT, 
THOMAS  N.  DALE, 
WILLIAM  A.  HALL, 

T.  B.  CODDINGTON, 


JACKSON  S.  SCHULTZ 
A.  C.  RICHARDS, 

L.  P.  MORTON, 

SETH  B.  HUNT, 
DAVID  DOWS, 

JOSIAH  M.  FISKE, 
JAMES  McKAYE. 


Publication  Committee. 

FRANCIS  LIEBER,  Chairman. 
G.  P.  LOWREY,  Secretary. 


Execut  i  ve  Committee. 

WILLIAM  T.  BLODGETT,  Chairman. 
GEORGE  WARD  NICHOLS,  Secretary. 


The  Loyal  Publication  Society  lias  already  issued  a  large 
number  of  Slips  and  Pamphlets,  which  have  been  widely  cir¬ 
culated.  Among  the  most  important  are  the  following  : 

No.  1.  Future  of  the  Northwest.  By  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

2.  Echo  from  the  Army. 

3.  Union  Mass  Meeting— Speeches  of  Brady ,  Van  Buren,  §c. 

4.  Three  Voices :  the  Soldier,  Farmer,  and  Poet. 

5.  Voices  from  the  Army. 

6.  Northern  True  Men. 

7.  Speech  of  Major-General  Butler. 

8.  Separation  ;  War  without  End.  Ed.  Laboulaye. 

9.  The  Venom  and  the  Antidote. 

10.  A  Few  Words  in  Behalf  of  the  Loyal  Women  of  the  United 
States.  By  One  of  Themselves. 

11.  No  Failure  for  the  North.  Atlantic  Monthly. 

12.  Address  to  King  Cotton.  Eugene  Pelletan. 

13.  How  a  Free  People  conduct  a  Long  War.  Stifle. 

14.  The  Preservation  of  the  Union,  a  National  Economic  Necessity. 

15.  Elements  of  Discords  in  Secessia,  &c.,  &c. 

16.  No  Party  now,  but  all  for  our  Country.  Francis  Lieber. 

17.  The  Cause  of  the  War.  Col.  Charles  Anderson. 

18.  Opinions  of  the  early  Presidents  and  of  the  Fathers  of  the 

Republic  upon  Slavery,  and  upon  Negroes  as  Men  and  Soldiers. 

19.  (Sinfjeit  itn&  iFreilieit,  Bon'ljermann  II  after. 

20.  Military  Despotism  !  Suspension  of  the  Habeas  Corpus  !  Ac. 

21.  Letter  addressed  to  the  Opera-House  Meeting,  Cincinnati. 

By  Col.  Charles  Anderson. 

22.  Emancipation  is  Peace.  By  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

23.  Letter  of  Peter  Cooper  on  Slave  Emancipation. 

24.  Patriotism.  Sermon  by  the  Rev.  Jos.  Fransioli ,  of  St.  Peter’s 

(Catholic)  Church,  Brooklyn. 

25.  The  Conditions  of  Reconstruction.  By  Robert  Dale  Owen. 

26.  Letter  to  the  President.  By  Gen.  A.  J.  Hamilton ,  of  Texas. 

27.  Nullification  and  Compromise:  a  Retrospective  View. 

28.  The  Death  of  Slavery.  Letter  from  Peter  Cooper  to  Gov.  Seymour. 

29.  Plantations  for  Slave  Labor  the  Death  of  the  Yeomanry. 

By  Francis  Lieber. 

30.  Rebel  Conditions  of  Peace. 

31.  Address  of  the  Loyal  Leagues  of  the  State  of  New  York. 

32.  War  Power  of  the  President. 

33.  The  Two  W aj^s  of  Treason. 

34.  Monroe  Doctrine.  By  Edward  Everett.  Printed  from  the  Nero  York 

Ledger. — Letters  from  John  Quincy  Adams. — Extract  from  Speech 
of  George  Canning. 

35.  Arguments  of  Secessionists.  • 

36.  Prophecy  and  Fulfilment. — Speech  of  A.  II.  Stephens.  Address  of 

E.  W.  Gantt. 


Loyal  Leagues,  Clubs,  or  individuals,  may  obtain  any  of  our 
publications  at  the  cost  price,  by  application  to  the  Executive 
Committee,  or  by  calling  at  the  Rooms  of  the  Society,  No.  863 
Broadway,  where  all  information  may  be  obtained  relating  to 
the  Societv. 


